Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]
FW 13 Mark Liebman

Clause 9

Local flood risk management strategies: England

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 9, page 6, line 23, at end insert
(1A) A lead local flood authority must gain the approval of the local flood risk management strategy by its regional flood and coastal committee as established in section 22..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 97, in clause 10, page 7, line 20, at end insert
(1A) A lead local flood authority must gain the approval of the local flood risk management strategy by its regional flood and coastal committee as established in section 22..
New clause 23Approval of local flood risk management strategies (England)
The regional flood and coastal committee shall approve local flood risk management strategies developed by lead local flood authorities for areas in England as defined in section 9..
New clause 24Approval of local flood risk management strategies (Wales)
The regional flood and coastal committee shall approve local flood risk management strategies developed by lead local flood authorities for areas in Wales as defined in section 10..

Martin Horwood: These proposals go to the heart of the effectiveness and appropriateness of local flood risk management strategies and whether they will receive effective overview or scrutiny. There is provision for overview and scrutiny committees as part of the local authority scrutiny system. Such committees are well established in looking at local NHS decisions and the system is effective. It would be useful for the local authority to scrutinise risk management authorities, such as water companies, internal drainage boards and even the Environment Agency, if the scope of local flood strategies is comprehensive enough. The problem is that the lead local authority for flood risk management is the local authority itself. So there is some rather circular self-scrutiny. It seems that no one has the role of checking the effectiveness, appropriateness or thoroughness of local flood risk management strategies.
A broader issue raised by the National Flood Forum and others is whether the national oversight role of the Environment Agency has enough teeth. It is certainly not clear from the outline national strategy presented to the Committee whether there will be a role of checking the effectiveness and appropriateness of local flood risk management strategies or whether attention will be paid to that. Perhaps the Environment Agency could have a role of checking them. However, the danger of over-centralisation in the Bill has also been highlighted by many hon. Members, the Local Government Association and others.
The solution that we suggest in the amendment and consequent proposals is that the role could fall to the newly established regional flood and coastal committees. They will have a local representative element and will not be as unelected and unaccountable as the Environment Agency. The Bill suggests that those committees will have a bit more local knowledge and more specific knowledge of the flood issues in an area. It therefore seems appropriate for those committees to approve local flood risk management strategies. That would provide a check and balance on the quality of such strategies.
This is a crucial issue for our constituents; the practical application of the strategies locally is something that people are most concerned about. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury might agree that the single biggest issue mentioned to us in the aftermath of the floods was the application of local strategies, whether for clearing culverts, maintaining watercourses, sorting out who was responsible for preventing the collapse of a river bank or the obstruction of a channel. Those are the critical issues for local people. It would seem appropriate to have some kind of proper scrutiny of how good local strategies are.
If the proposal outlined in the amendment was not used, I would welcome the Ministers suggestions for an appropriate system of scrutiny. I would have thought that the regional flood and coastal committees could each look at a reasonable number of local strategies. It would not be out of the realms of managerial possibility to do that. They should have the right degree of expertise and local knowledge. I have given our suggestion. I would welcome a debate on the issue of scrutiny and will listen to the Ministers response with interest.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Good morning, Mr. Chope. It is good to be serving under your stewardship again. I understand the spirit in which the amendments have been made. Good scrutiny and overview are important. The amendments, which are tabled by the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire, would require local flood-risk strategies effectively to be approved by regional flood and coastal committees. We recognise the vital role that such committees will need to play, not least to ensure that there is a joined-up approach on the ground. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to give them the role of approving the strategies, because that would go against two key principles in the Bill. The first principle is that there is a clear allocation of responsibility to a particular authorityin effect, where the buck stops. The second principle is that democratically elected local authorities should be clearly leading at the local level.
I understand what the hon. Member for Cheltenham is saying, but we see the measure as local democracy in action: put the accountability there and hand over the scrutiny function. Within the local authority itself, the overview and scrutiny committee will have a role to play, but the RFCCs and the Environment Agency will provide peer support and advice.
We note that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made some recommendations as well. It suggested that the Bill should
require decision making bodies to explain how they have taken into account any advice from regional advisory bodies, or their reasons for rejecting it.
We see the Bill as being consistent with that, not least because we fully intend to clarify the situation through guidance. Therefore, the point that the hon. Gentleman makes is right. We need to ensure that the committees are fully inputting into the policy, but we want to see the buck stopping firmly with locally elected members on those authorities.
Therefore, we expect the regional flood and coastal committees to have a role with the Environment Agency in scrutinising local authority outputs under the flood risk regulations that will implement the EU flood directive. The outputs are preliminary flood risk assessments to identify significant risk areas, risk and hazard maps showing the impact of flooding in an area, and management plans. Those outputs will underlie local authority strategies, but the role does not need to be reflected in the Bill.
In addition, the Environment Agency will help to put in place a joined-up regional approach by addressing partnership working, which has been a theme of much of our deliberations. Its national strategy and guidance will put the matter clearly, showing how partnership working on the ground will work. It will include disseminating information on best practice at a local level for agencies and authorities working together, and also for cross-border working. Therefore, the accountability is there. We do not believe that the RFCCs should be given the role of approving local flood-risk strategies; none the less, they have a pivotal role to play.

Martin Horwood: I am warming to the Ministers comments. It is quite uncomfortable for me to be accused of being too centralist by the Labour Government; I may well withdraw my amendments judiciously. The Minister talks about peer support and advice from the regional flood and coastal committees to local flood risk management authorities, yet there is no mention of that function in the local flood risk management section of the Bill or in clause 22 onwards, where the regional flood risk committees are established. As far as I can tell, nothing in the Bill puts such a situation in place, but the Minister may correct me.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is rightthere is nothing in the Bill in that regard, but we want to clarify the matter through the guidance. We must get the balance right between what we put in the Bill and what we bring through. We can make it clear that we intend the matter to be brought forward in the guidance to the Environment Agency, and in the guidance that accompanies the national strategy.

John Grogan: Will my hon. Friend clarify that the amendments we are discussing are about the role that the RFCC should have in either advising on or approving the flood risk strategies of individual local authorities, whereas later in our proceedings we will discuss whether those committees should continue to have the function of approving the strategy of the Environment Agency in a region? Is that distinction right?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, my hon. Friend makes the right distinction. These amendments are about local flood risk strategies for which, as I think I made clear, we see RFCCs having a pivotal role, but not in approving the strategies.
To take up the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, we can clarify some of this through guidance but we want responsibility to be clearly given to local elected members. They should take the decisions and be scrutinised in doing so, get input from other authorities and take other advice, including from the RFCCs. That is how we envisage they will work. Rather than having over-complicated layers of additional sign-off for strategies, we will put the buck clearly with those individualswho are elected, as we areand say, Get the decisions right, listen to the RFCCs and the Environment Agency, put plans forward, make decisions and be accountable.

Andrew Turner: The Ministers explanation is much to be preferred to that of the hon. Member for Cheltenham. [Hon. Members: Oh!] On this occasion.
I am concerned about one thing. Some unitary authorities are quite small geographically. For example, the city of Southampton unitary authority is entirely encircled by Hampshire county council. I accept that it should have authority, but will it be expected to co-operate? In many cases, it happens to be those people who are nearest to the boundaries who are also nearest to the floods.

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is a good point and I suspect we will return to it in considering subsequent amendments, but it is worth making it clear right now, in response to the hon. Gentlemans question, that we would expect authorities to co-operate of necessity. Yes, there are localised flood sources such as surface water drainage within a particular area, but co-ordination of flood risk management across a water catchment area, from the top of the hills down to the ingress of tidal flooding, needs to be done through co-operation. He is absolutely right, and we shall come to duties to co-operate in subsequent amendments.
I can clarify that we want accountability at a local level with local authorities, and with the Environment Agency playing its strategic role. That very much follows the Pitt recommendations, but it does not mean that people should cut themselves off in silos. Of necessity, there will have to be co-operation across boundaries because water knows no boundaries.

Martin Horwood: I am persuaded that I may be putting Liberal Democrat localist credentials at some risk with the amendment, so I am happy to withdraw it, but there is still a legitimate concern from the National Flood Forum and others that there may be a quality and scrutiny deficit. I look forward to holding Conservative Gloucestershire council to account in local Liberal Democrat Focus leaflets. If Conservative leaflets in the area are to be believed, the world could come to an end if Gloucestershire were ever to fall into Liberal Democrat hands.
I hope the local accountability function will be sufficient for whichever political party happens to be in control of Gloucestershireor, indeed, other authoritieswith this flood risk management responsibility to hold itself to account, in effect, and that we will not need some greater oversight role. I am reassured by what the Minister said about the advice and support that could be given by RFCCs, and I believe that that will happen in practice even though it is not provided for in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 9, page 6, line 24, leave out from second risk to end of line 27 and insert
of any kind in a defined geographical area such as a district or unitary authority area..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 96, in clause 10, page 7, line 21, leave out from second risk to end of line 24 and insert
of any kind in a defined geographical area such as a district or unitary authority area..

Martin Horwood: The amendments go to the heart of what we have talked about a number of times already in this Committee: the difference between the vertical and horizontal split in responsibilities. As I have said before, many of us took from the Pitt report the implication that the national oversight role and the local lead responsibility both cover all forms of flood risk, with the former being national and strategic, looking at the best practice to address different types of flood risk and how best to approach landscape features and hard flood defences, and so on, but with the local authority having an equal oversight role for conditions in its local area.
When the Bill was published there was a slight drift back towards dividing up different types of flood water and qualifying the overarching responsibilities, which is dangerous for the national oversight role, in that it implies that some kinds of flood waterparticularly surface water, run-off, ground water and ordinary water courses, as set out on page 6 of the Billmight be less of a responsibility for the national strategy, even though those are critically important to just as many people. Similarly, the Bill might limit the responsibilities of local authorities.
The National Flood Forum has said it is worried that there is a limiting of responsibilities for surface water, for instance, which is critically important. Given the approach to planning, which is often sadly taking place regionally, it is not always clear what a local authority can do to influence that process. In any case, in a two-tier authority it is not the county council that is the planning authority. That is a difficult issue to deal with.
Will the strategy for monitoring the Environment Agencys work on main rivers and principal flood defences be qualified by the clause, which seems to narrow the boundaries of a local flood risk management strategy? Will the water companies responsibility for maintaining sewers be limited by the clause? At the very least, will there be a problem when looking at particular local areas, which, for instance, bound on main watercourses?
Let me give a couple of examples from my constituency. Little Bayshill terrace in the centre of Cheltenham, which flooded in the floods of 2007, is bounded on two sides by the River Chelt, which is a main river, although not a big one. Extensive flood defences were put in by the residentssandbags, effective flood walls and flood defences beside their housesbut in the event a lot of the problem came from ground water rising through their floorboards. In the College road area, surface water run-off was the principal problem, but that was exacerbated by complications from the main flood defence scheme at Coxs meadow, which was the responsibility of the Environment Agency. It is virtually impossible in practice for a local authority to take responsibility for flooding locally, managing flood risk and taking a lead responsibility for flood risk in their local area, without looking, for example, at main rivers, principal flood defences and the other things that other flood risk authorities seem to have responsibility for.
I am worried about the narrowing of the clause. That is why we suggest that, instead of having defined types of waterit is nonsense to try to separate them offwe simply replace the three kinds of specific floodwater with risk from any kind of flood
in a defined geographical area such as a district or unitary authority area,
because that is more in line with what most hon. Members expected from the Pitt report and with practical common sense.

Laurence Robertson: First, the hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned the River Chelt. He will be aware that the damage was considerable in some areas. The gardens of some houses that are just inside my constituency collapsed into the river.
An enormous job is still going on and, of course, major problems resulted from the flooding in that area.
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from with the amendment, but to remove the word groundwater worries me slightly because if we go back to an earlier debate and consider clause 6, it states:
Groundwater means all water which is below the surface of the ground.
It is important that we retain some reference to water below the surface as well as to water on the surface for the reasons we gave in, I think, the very first debate we had in Committee.

Andrew Turner: I am a little confused by what the hon. Member for Cheltenham said. Does he mean that the responsibility should devolve from the regional level to the lead local authority or does he mean that it should start and end there? If he does not mean that, what is he suggesting? I am a bit unclear about what he means. Secondly, what is the position regarding places such as the Isle of Wight where there is no problemno level outside the constituency or even beyond the county councilso there is no need to have anything that belongs outside the Isle of Wight?

Martin Horwood: May I respond briefly?

Christopher Chope: That was a speech rather than an intervention. If the Minister speaks now, the hon. Gentleman will have the chance to sum up the debate at the end.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will respond to the comments made and allow the hon. Gentleman to come back on the point that has understandably been made. This is a matter concerning the clarity of how we have structured the Bill. The effect of the amendments would be to change the definition and scope of local flood risk management to encompass all types of flooding, not just what is mentioned at the moment, as the hon. Gentleman has said. So rather than just surface water, ground water and ordinary watercourses and so on would be covered. We think those types of flooding are appropriately dealt with locally because of their overlap with issues relating to the highways, planning and infrastructure.
The amendment would, in effect, give the lead local flood authority responsibility for deciding the management of flood risks from main rivers and the sea. The decision of any individual lead local authority can have a significant effect on a neighbouring authoritys area, whether in relation to catchment or in a broader coastal area. That is not to say in any way whatsoever that local authorities ever take a parochial view of their responsibilities to local taxpayers and that they might favour one scheme over another and so on.
We think we have got the split right, and I will explain why in relation to Sir Michael Pitts recommendations. When he undertook his in-depth review of the causes of the 2007 flooding, he suggested that, in line with our thinking in the Bill, local authorities are, indeed, the most appropriate authorities to deal with the management of local flood risk. That is because local authorities have the existing responsibilities and the knowledge of highway drainage, planningincluding emergency planning, as we have recently seen in Cumbriaand the management of ordinary watercourses.
Sir Michael Pitt rightly identified what he called the place-shaping role of local authorities in helping to manage flood risk in the future. The Government accepted that recommendation, which is why the Bill has been configured in this way. In addition, it was considered that the Environment Agency is best placed and has that special role to provide a strategic or linked overview of all forms of flooding on a national scalenationally significant risksincluding from main rivers and the sea. Looking at what has happened in Cumbria, and at main flooding incidents from the Severn or the Wye, we can see that they hit a number of local authorities, from the top of that catchment all the way down to where it comes out in the Bristol channel, so the EA view is appropriate, but with local authorities considering flood risk at a local scale. Clarity in that regard is important, but that is not to say that those bodies do not have to work together and co-operate.

David Drew: We cannot control the water, but we can control the structure of local authorities. Should we not, in any reform of local authorities, take note of appropriate flooding problems and reorganise local authorities accordingly?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed, that is absolutely right. That is why our clear intention is that neither the local lead authorities or the EA work in isolation. The lead local authorities work alongside the EA at catchment and coastal unit level. Partnership working along these lines is central to the structure set out in the Bill and is supported by the duty to co-operate in clause 13. The definition of local flood risk as arising from the sources of flooding that have been specified was intentional, as these sources predominantly have an impact on the local area and are best managed on this spatial scale.
Committee members will note that in order to develop their local flood risk strategy, local authorities will have to take into accountthis is importantinteractions with other sources of flooding including from main rivers, the sea and sewers, because if they do not their strategy will be deficient. As Committee members can see, the allocation of responsibility proposed by the amendment runs counter to the clear allocation of powers between the EA and the other risk management authorities that the Bill seeks to put in place.
As I have said clearly, to do anything other than to take account of the potential impact of river flooding or coastal inundation, or of other areas that the EA has primary responsibility for, would make its strategy deficient. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Martin Horwood: Let me address some of the issues raised by the hon. Members for Tewkesbury and for Isle of Wight. I am sympathetic to the comments made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, which underline why it is so important to put ground water specifically in the earlier clauses in the Bill, although I am not sure that we would tackle that in this clause, because the broader issue is not to limit the responsibilities of local authorities too much.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight says that there are no outside influences that would conflict with a local flood risk management strategy on the Isle of Wight, but that is not quite so, because coastal erosion and coastal flood risk are, by implication, under the clause, not a local responsibility or a local flood risk, because local flood risk is surface run-off, ground water and ordinary watercourses. So by implication the local flood risk strategy on the Isle of Wight should not really address coastal flood defences. I would expect the hon. Gentleman to regard that as nonsense. In other geographical areas that may be discrete there will also be interaction. The Minister seemed to acknowledge that the intention behind the legislation is that local authorities should take account of other sources of flooding and should co-operate, and so on, but that is not what the Bill says. There is a point at which the level of trust and faith that we are expected to have in Ministers gets put to the test when the Bill says the precise opposite of what they do.
The clause says:
A lead local flood authority for an area in England must develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management.
But it then states that local flood risk only means
surface runoff...groundwater, and...ordinary watercourses.
That is diametrically opposed to what is said in the Pitt report, which emphasises that
local authorities will need to be aware of all flood risk in their areas, as surface water flooding is often an interaction between intense rainfall, the river network, drainage systems and groundwater levels...Local authorities already play a central role in response and recovery activities during and after a flood. The Review believes that local authorities roles should be enhanced to take on responsibility for leading the coordination of surface water flood risk management and improving knowledge of all local flood risk in their areas.
When Sir Michael used the words local flood risk, he did not mean it to be restricted just to the three categories that are in the clause.

Huw Irranca-Davies: With regard to the points the hon. Gentleman is making, pulling together various parts of the Bill is critical. I want to draw his attention to clause 13, which deals with co-operation and arrangements, and which we shall discuss shortly. Subsection (1) of that clause, in line with what I have just said, clearly states:
A relevant authority must co-operate with other relevant authorities in the exercise of their flood and coastal erosion risk management functions.
He does not have to take that from me, as the necessity and duty to co-operate in the functions is clearly laid out in the Bill, including across all the risks of flooding within the area. Although the local authority has the primary responsibility for surface run-off and so on, as rightly identified in clause 9, it has a duty to co-operate with those others to maximise flood prevention.

Martin Horwood: I hear what the Minister is saying, but co-operation is not the same as having a strategic plan. The purpose of clause 9 is to set out what a local flood risk management strategy is, as requested by Sir Michael Pitt in his report and supported by many people over the intervening months and years. The truth is that clause 9 will limit local plans to those three kinds of flood risk. That is not what Sir Michael Pitt asked for and is not common sense. It would be nonsense. It would mean that, in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire county council could get away with not addressing issues of flooding relating to the River Chelt and the main river system or the brand new £23 million flood defence system for which the Environment Agency has direct responsibility. It means that on the Isle of Wight the local plan should not address coastal flood defences and that local officers could quite happily quote the Bill and say, Sorry, but that is really not our brief, because it is outside the definition of local flood risk. We will of course co-operate with people on that, but we will not cover it. Unless the Minister is prepared to intervene to give an assurance that he will look at that wording and perhaps return to it later

Huw Irranca-Davies: The remarks I have already made on the duty to co-operate in the Bill were clear and categorical, but of course the hon. Gentlemans comments are made in isolation from what we have discussed previously. I have mentioned both the national strategy, including the duty for local lead authorities to comply with it, and the guidance that will come, but I also intervened to assist him by clarifying the situation with regard to the Isle of Wight. The district council there

Andrew Turner: It is not a district council.

Huw Irranca-Davies: A district councilnot on the Isle of Wightcan deal with sea flooding with the Environment Agencys consent. The Isle of Wight is unitary, so it is in effect both a local flood authority and a district council for the purposes of the provision. Therefore, it can combine those roles.

Martin Horwood: Although I am grateful for that intervention, I am not sure that it addresses even the issue on the Isle of Wight, because as far as I can see it is still not the responsibility of the Isle of Wight council to include coastal flood risk in its local flood risk management plan. That seems absolutely clear from clause 9(1) and (2). That is how I read it at the moment. I will keep talking now in the hope that the Minister might be about to make a useful intervention. He might like to undertake to look at that wording again and seek clarification, because those provisions in the Bill are certainly open to misinterpretation, if what he says is right.

Huw Irranca-Davies: To clarify the issue on the Isle of Wight, sea flooding is covered, but coastal erosion, of course, is not.

Martin Horwood: There are clarifications and clarifications, and that was not one of the better ones. Coastal erosion is not covered, but sea flooding is. Well, that implies a distinction that might be difficult to draw in practice when someones house is flooded as a result of a coastal defence giving way. I fear that I have not had the reassurances I require on the clause and so will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 9, page 6, line 37, after the, insert revised.
I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Chope. I want to press the Minister on something he said in response to an earlier amendment and a clause stand part debate. We would like the opportunity to amend the Flood Risk Regulations 2009, so will he confirm that he said that there would be an opportunity to do so as part of the debate?
Will the Minister also explain the relationship between the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 No. 3042 and the Bill? Much of the content of the regulations mirrors what is included in the Bill. What is the relationship between the two and which will take precedence? Part 1 of the regulations sets out a number definitions, including that of risk, which appears to be different from the one that is in the Bill. The Bill and the regulations also vary in their definitions of flood. Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the regulations, which refer to a preliminary flood-risk assessment, flood-hazard maps, flood-risk maps and flood-risk management, are very similar to the Bill, but, on occasions, they are slightly at variance with clauses 50 to 63. Part 5 of the regulations relates to exemptions and part 6 to co-operation. That is similar, but, on occasion, dissimilar to clauses 24 and 26. Part 7 relates to cross-border issues in Northumbria and Solway Tweed river basin districts, which the Bill has not covered.
The Minister will be aware that profound concern has been expressed by many who are as affected by the draft regulations as they will be by the Bill, but they have not been given a chance to express their views. Will he tell us whether he has opened a formal consultation period on the flood regulations, and will he then respond to the points that I have made? Moreover, will he confirm whether we can table amendments to the regulations because I have always understood that we could not amend a statutory instrument. On Tuesday, however, I clearly heard him say that we could.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The amendment is interesting in that it seeks to insert the word revised before the reference to the Flood Risk Regulations 2009. To pick up on the hon. Ladys initial point, I can confirm what I said about amending the regulations. However, that is assuming that the intention of the amendment is to ensure that the reference to the regulations will take account of the fact that they may be amended from time to time. I can give the assurance that the amendment is not necessary because sections 20 and 23 of the Interpretation Act 1978 provide that a reference in an Act to subordinate legislation, such as the regulations, is to be taken as a reference to that legislation, as amended. In effect, it is possible to amend the flood risk regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. If necessary, that can be done after the passage of the Bill, if that is what the hon. Lady wants to do.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful. However, our wish would be to amend the regulations as part of the Bill. That is why I tabled the earlier amendment regarding the European Communities Act 1972. The Minister is saying that he can amend the regulations, or that his colleagues in the European Union can do so. However, we want to amend them in the context of this Committee, as part of the Bill. That would address the point that they have not been consulted on sufficiently and the fact that there is a great deal of unhappiness with them because the definitions are at variance with those in the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I understand the hon. Ladys point. She wants the opportunity to amend the regulations during the passage of the Bill. I do not think that that is possible. They can be amended subsequently at any opportunity if it is considered appropriate.
I should explain the point we are at and what has already been done in terms of scrutiny. I mentioned this point the other day. There was a deadline for the transposition of the directive. We must bear it in mind that any Government have a responsibility to minimise the risk of infraction for not transposing or implementing a directive. The directive was transposed on 26 November. The use of the European Communities Act 1972 manages the significant risk of infraction, which would be inevitable if the directive were transposed at a later date through the Bill. We therefore chose to proceed in this way.
The original directive was scrutinised by the European Scrutiny Committee. Section 2(2) regulations are generally subject to the negative resolution procedure. The regulations were made available for scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments in the usual way. As the flood risk regulations were laid at the same time as the Bill was introduced, there were opportunities for Parliament to consider them and to understand the links between them. The hon. Lady is right that there are overlaps, but they have been designed to complement each other. There was an opportunity to call for the regulations to be debated in the usual way, but that did not occur.
The approach used was appropriate because the regulations simply concern the responsibilities for assessing and planning for risk management, the allocation of which does not change significantly. The general public are not affected, other than by benefiting from improved flood risk management.
On scrutiny, the main provisions of the regulations benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny, which we took on board. They are based closely on the provisions of clauses 50 to 63 of the draft Bill.
As I understand it, the regulations cannot be amended at this stage, but they can be amended subsequently. I note that the regulations have been prayed against in another place and that there will be a debate in the other House later this month. We welcome that because parliamentary scrutiny is always important. However, it is worth pointing out that, for all the reasons I have given, the timely transposition and implementation of the directive through the regulations were important to minimise the risk of infraction proceedings and, more importantly, because any delaywhich would be the effect of praying against the regulations and stopping the provisions in their trackswould cause uncertainty for the authorities affected by the Bill, which want to get on with the work immediately. However, we welcome scrutiny and the opportunity for debate.
There will be the opportunity to amend the regulations subsequently, if required. However, they complement the Bill so we hope that the hon. Lady will explain to her noble colleagues in another place that the debate is good, but ask them not to cause delay because we want to get on with implementing the measures.

Anne McIntosh: I do not know that the Ministers response is entirely satisfactory, but it would not be in our interests to delay the implementation of the EU floods directive. Is it a common procedure for a statutory instrument to be considered only in the other place and not in this place? I understood that all statutory instruments, as a matter of course, went through both Houses.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My understanding is that the same procedure could have been effected here as well, but I am not sure whether the time for that has already gone. The other place has certainly taken the opportunity.

Anne McIntosh: I am not sure the Minister answered the point about how long the consultation period with outside bodies would be.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As I explained, the proposal is substantively the same as in the clauses of the original draft Bill to which I alluded and, as such, we took comments about those on board, because they had significant feedback.

Christopher Chope: If the hon. Lady wishes to consider tabling a new clause rather than an amendment, it might be considered. I cannot guarantee it will be selected, but she would be able to discuss the possible contents of the new clause. That may help her.

Anne McIntosh: That is extremely helpful. On that basis, I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 9, page 7, line 1, leave out must be consistent with and insert must have regard to.
The amendment is straightforward, emphasising the point that we would like the position of local authorities, internal drainage boards and local landowners to be strengthened, so that local expertise will have the final say on local flood risk management strategies. As the Minister is aware, a charge was made against the Government that many aspects of the Bill, particularly the earlier clause 7, are centralising in nature. The amendment is trying to tease out of the Minister that the Government will have regard to the local aspects.
Another issue appropriate to consider now involves catchment management areas. One proposal that insurance companies in particular were concerned about was how activities required by flood risk management strategies would be funded. I wanted to press the Minister on that point. Will he clarify the relationship between the local flood risk management strategies and the national flood risk management strategy? Later we shall consider the possibility of appealing, but the amendment presses the Minister on what the relationship between the local and national strategies would be.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the probing and questioning nature of the amendment. In effect, in place of the requirement that local flood risk strategies be consistent with the national strategy, the amendment would have a slightly weaker requirement for the local strategies to have regard to the national strategy.
The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that local authorities have considerable discretion with their flood management strategies. However, we do not consider the amendment to be necessary or appropriate for two reasons. First, on the whole, as we discussed, the national strategy is intended to set out broad approaches and is not overly prescriptive about flood management in any one area. That is where the local discretion, knowledge and implementation come in. An outline has already been given to the Committee, which I hope makes that clear. Local authorities also have safeguards in that the national strategy will be subject to consultation and available for scrutiny, including by the EFRA Committee, before it is approved by Ministers, who will be able to ensure that the strategy is not too prescriptive.
Secondly, it is vital that local strategies are consistent with the national strategy. One example is the importance of the local authority following the national strategy to avoid detrimental effects on other areas with the same river catchment or further along the coast. Although a decision to build, for example, certain defences may make absolute sense at local level, in the wider picture it might not. It is important, therefore, that local strategies are consistent with the overall framework. Another example is in respect of consistency in risk assessments and appraisals, which is essential to ensure that funding is distributed systematically and equitably across the country.
I conclude by emphasising that the hon. Lady, members of the Committee, local authorities and others will have ample opportunity to ensure that the national strategy reflects local needs. We encourage everyone to respond to that consultation, as their input will be vital. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Martin Horwood: There is a difficult balance to be struck and I am sympathetic to what I guess is the sense of the amendmentto allow local authorities a little more freedom. My continuing theme in Committee is that we need effective scrutiny. An Environment Agency power to investigate is not in the Bill, although we will discuss that later. If we do not have the clear instruction under our amendment 94 that the local authority flood strategy should cover all forms of flooding, which is still a matter of debate, and without the clear signal that the national flood and coastal risk management strategy should cover all forms of flooding, it may turn out that the local and national strategies are covering different things. Consistency should not be difficult to achieve and regard would not even be necessary.
Let us be optimistic. The thrust of what the Minister keeps telling us to take on faith is that the national strategy will provide clear leadership and advice on all forms of flooding, including those covered by local flood risk management strategies. In that situation I cannot understand why we would not want local strategies to be consistent with it. That seems a bit basic to me.
I am all for localism. I am a great champion of localism in planning, in local economics and local taxation. I withdrew my earlier amendment at the risk of being seen to be too centralising even at a regional level, but it does not seem too much to ask that a local strategy designed to address, oras we were told a few minutes agoat least have regard to all forms of flooding in the local area, even those that are the responsibility of water companies or the Environment Agency, must be consistent with the national strategy for those forms of flooding. As I said, I am sympathetic to allowing local authorities a bit more freedom. I merely think the proposal goes a bit too far.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. In light of his consideration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 9, page 7, line 7, at end insert
(c) water companies..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 23, in clause 9, page 7, line 7, at end insert
(c) the relevant sewerage undertaker(s)..
Amendment 116, in clause 9, page 7, line 7, at end insert
(c) bodies representing the owners and occupiers of land likely, in the opinion of the lead local flood authority, to be directly affected by flood and coastal erosion..
Amendment 117, in clause 10, page 8, line 4, at end insert
(b) bodies representing the owners and occupiers of land likely, in the opinion of the lead local flood authority, to be directly affected by flood and coastal erosion..
Amendment 24, in clause 10, page 8, line 5, at end insert
(c) the relevant sewerage undertaker(s)..

Anne McIntosh: To take the amendments in order, amendment 12 adds to the list of bodies that the lead local flood authority must consult in connection with its local flood risk management strategy. We believe that water companies have a key role to play. Amendment 12 is a precursor to our subsequent amendment in which we envisage a greater role for water companies with regard to sustainable drainage systems.
I believe that it is the intention of the Minister and the Department completely to end automatic connections, so it would make sense to include water companies in the consultation on the local management strategy. I would like to hear from the Minister whether they were deliberately omitted, or whether it is meant to be implicit in the clause that they would be included in any consultation, as well as the relevant storage undertakers if they are different from the water companies. It makes sense to extend the brief to them.
We also want landowners to be includeda constant theme that we have had and will have throughout the Bill. We discussed saturation and waterlogging, and their impact on landowners who lose their crops and are unable to obtain compensation for those losses. A flood risk management strategy will have huge implications for landowners and farmers, whether owners or tenants, and we believe that whoever farms the land or their bodies representing should be included.
In fact, there is a slight difficulty in limiting inclusion to bodies representing, because, as members of the Committee will know, many farmers are so independent that they do not wish to be part of a body. If we could possibly encompass individual farmers who wish to maintain their independence and not be part of a body, that would be extremely helpful. We have extended the inclusions to clauses 9 and 10, and will be considering them and, if necessary, pressing them to a vote on clause 10 as well.
It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why in clause 9(6), which is otherwise an all-encompassing subsection, water companies, sewerage undertakers and farmers and landowners were excluded. I hope that if their inclusion is not implicit, he will look favourably on the amendments.

Martin Horwood: I want briefly to consider Conservative amendments 12 and 23 before moving on to amendment 116, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. I apologise that he is not here today. I am afraid that he has been taken ill, which explains his absence. I shall endeavour to stand in his shoes, which will be difficult.
Amendments 12 and 23 address an important issue by making specific some of the consultation that has to be carried out by lead local authorities. If local strategies really cover all forms of flooding and their impact will not be limited just to ground water, surface water and so on, flooding from sewerage and drainage, and the fixtures and infrastructure that are the responsibility of water companies will clearly require consultation.
However, I have a slight question for the Conservative Front Bench. As water companies are defined as risk-management authorities in clause 6, I believe that it is compulsory for them to be consulted anyway. The only possibility is that the clause refers to the local water company only, but that the amendment, in referring to water companies, implies more than one. That would rarely be the case because water companies are entirely geographic at present, Cave review notwithstanding, so I cannot think why the authority would ever want to consult any water company other than its local one.
My counter-question to the Minister is whether there is any possibility that one could fulfil the terms of the Bill without consulting the local water company about the local flood risk management strategy. If so, I would happily support the amendment in order to put the matter absolutely beyond doubt.
I am happy to support amendment 23 because it is important that we fill the possible loophole that sewerage undertakers might not be risk management authorities. The hon. Member for Vale of York has already dealt with amendment 23 to some extent. I support it and take the hon. Ladys point that farmers are not necessarily members of bodies and that perhaps the provision might provide them with an incentive to join some. I do not represent a rural constituency, but my impression of Gloucestershire is that there is no shortage of active and vocal bodies representing farmers and landowners. I doubt whether there would be difficulty identifying bodies that could offer an opinion. Obviously, I am in support of amendment 116 and matching amendment 117.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Farmers and landowners could join the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales or the Country Land and Business Association. They could join the GMB, Unison or Unite. Who knows? As the Committee can imagine, I am firmly in favour of people coming together in federations to represent their interests. I almost did not rise to speak because the hon. Member for Cheltenham rightly made the connection with clause 6, but I shall clarify a few matters.
The amendments would add water companies, relevant sewerage undertakers and bodies that represent landowners and occupiers to the list of those bodies under clauses 9 and 10 that lead local flood authorities must consult about the risk management strategy. As the hon. Gentleman has identified, the list currently includes risk management authorities that might be affected by the strategy and water companies in clause 6(11), thereby encompassing water and sewerage undertakers in connection with chapter 1, part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991. The provision is written explicitly for that purpose. A licence under chapter 1A of part 2 of the Act includes not only water companies, but sewerage undertakers. They are already included within the definition of risk management authorities under clause 6(13), so relevant water and sewerage companies have to be consulted in any event. Amendments 12, 23 and 24 are therefore not necessary. Such matters are explicit in the Bill.
I am sympathetic to the issue about landowners. If they are doing their job properly, local authorities in rural areas already engage as a matter of course with representative bodies of landowners on a wide range of issuesthe action suggested by amendments 116 and 117. Such bodies also have the opportunity to respond to the public consultation provided by the clause.
The Secretary of State is likely to issue generic guidance to all local authorities in England about how they should work in partnership with other authorities to develop and implement the strategy. That guidance can include a reference to the importance of consulting land managers such as farmers. Standing here as the Minister, I think that that is completely logical.
The Environment Agency can also provide guidance under its powers in clause 7, which local authorities will be obliged to follow. The Secretary of State can provide guidance to the Environment Agency, too. I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member for Vale of York wants to do, which is to make sure that landowners and their organisations are part and parcel of any consultation on the issues that will directly affect them, but that does not need to be stipulated in the Bill because there are two or three other ways in which we can deal with the matter. As I am firmly saying, such an outcome makes absolute sense.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister said that, if the local authorities are doing their jobs properly, they will be in touch with landowners. However, my experience of the flooding in 2007 was that such discussions did not always take place. Many riparian owners were not necessarily aware of their obligations and certainly not forced to carry them out with regard to waterways. I am sure that the law as it stands is not working so I am persuaded that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York might draw attention to the problem and actually help.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the law is right, and the duties are clear. We have local scrutiny and accountability. Of course, the Secretary of State can also issue directives to the Environment Agency, so that it can give guidance. In respect of this particular aspect, through the Bill, as I said, we can issue guidance that links to the strategy. So we are able to make what the local authorities should be doing clear.
On that basis, it is for those involved in local scrutiny and for us as parliamentarians to hold our local authorities to account and ensure that they are consulting properly. If the local authority in my area failed to consult with local landowners on the development of a strategy, I would certainly be holding them publicly to account and saying, What the hell are you playing at? I understand the spirit in which the hon. Lady has tabled the amendment, but there are provisions in the Bill to deal with that. In terms of the sewerage and water companies, those provisions are explicit within the Bill as drafted.

Anne McIntosh: Now that the Minister has explained the matter, I understand the position with water companies and sewerage undertakers much more clearly. In expressing my wish not to press my amendments further, I would also like to say that, regarding landowners, although the Minister is wedded to federation, I believe that one who stands alone can also be strong. I hope he will have regard to the spirit of the amendments dealing with the role of landowners in that regard. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 9, page 7, line 16, at end insert
(10) The Minister shall as soon as possible instigate, publish and have regard to a review undertaken by a panel of independent persons pertaining to the costs which will be incurred by local authorities in implementing the provisions of this Clause before the Clause is commenced..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 113, in clause 9, page 7, line 16, at end add
(10) The Secretary of State shall as soon as possible instigate, publish and have regard to a review undertaken by a panel of independent persons, including representatives from local authorities, universities, professional institutions and other bodies as the Secretary of State deems appropriate, pertaining to the training that will be required for the lead local flood authorities to undertake the functions conferred under this section before this section is commenced..

Anne McIntosh: Clause 9 relates to the proposals we have discussed in considering other chapters, and the huge responsibilities and implications for local authorities. Notwithstanding what I am going to say about the amendment, I shall make some general points on clause 9 stand part. We believe it would be appropriate for the Minister to set up a review, the details of which should be published, so that it is open to the public domain. The review should be undertaken by a panel of independent persons and should pertain to the costs that are incurred by local authorities in implementing the provisions.
Sir Michael Pitt was clear about what resources will be required to implement the measures that form those parts of the Bill on which all are united. What is not clearthere will be other opportunities to discuss thisis where those resources will come from. We believe it is appropriate for the review to be independently undertaken. I am mindful of the fact that the Conservatives tend to enjoy a dominant position and have control of most of the councils. That is a cause for great celebration, but it brings with it enormous responsibilities. We do not want to have any questions raised about councils not having the resources available.
I part company with the hon. Member for Cheltenham on his amendment 113, because it also mentions training. If the Liberal Democrats had introduced an amendment that related exclusively to training, it would have been worthy of consideration in its own right. Through amendment 29, we want to draw attention to the fact that the Bill has enormous resource implications. It is not clear from where the resources for local authorities will come.
We are in the middle of a winter weather crisis. In my own county, the stocks of grit are about to run out now, and the Government are intervening to say when we can or cannot grit. Clearly, these are unprecedented weather conditions, the like of which we have not seen for 20 or 30 years. Such conditions were a regular occurrence 20 or 30 years ago, but I never missed a day of school, and my father, who was a country GP, never missed a visit to a patient because of the weather. Therefore, I hope that that is not something to which we will have to become accustomed. With those remarks, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.

Martin Horwood: I am a little surprised by the hon. Ladys unwillingness to support amendment 113, since it was drafted for us, I must confess, by the Local Government Association, which, as she has pointed out, is heavily influenced by Conservative Members. I suspect that it will be a little upset that she does not support it.
Both amendments raise an important issue, which is why I am happy to support both, of the real burden of responsibility being placed on local authorities by the Bill. The Minister said bravely on Second Reading that all additional responsibilities would be fully funded. We did not have the chance to explore that in great detail at the time, but now is his moment to explain exactly how that will work.
There is a general concern about the burden being put on local authorities. I have a specific example from my constituency. Cheltenham borough council has recently been successful in winning around £700,000 of flood defence funding for work that straddles the boundary between my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. In the Warden Hill area there will be extensive flood defences, and that is a welcome initiative. However, it took a huge amount of work by members of staff at Cheltenham borough councilall credit to Geoff Beer and his team for pursuing itwhich comes at a cost.
Although the impact assessment, which I have tried to read, implies that flood defence has various economic benefits that will off-set the cost and that other responsibilities are being passed elsewhere, I cannot see how any of those benefits, ultimately, will pay the salaries of the people who will have to do the work on initiatives such as the Warden Hill flood relief scheme and meet the wider responsibilities involved in drawing up the flood risk management strategy when the Bill comes into force.
In relation to various provisions in the Bill, a nagging series of concerns has been raised that some of that stuff might not work in practice if the resources are not in place. If the resources are not available to allow the Environment Agency to comprehensively address all forms of flooding, including the ones that must be picked up in local flood risk management strategies, if there is insufficient scrutiny to ensure that we have local flood strategies of adequate quality, if local authorities above all do not have the resources to carry out the functions expected of them, and if that tangle of responsibilities is not sorted out, we may find, for all the time we have spent in Committee, that we have not moved a great deal further forward. I share the LGAs alarm about how that will work in practice and, therefore, am happy to support amendment 29.
Amendment 113 seeks to address the obvious skills shortage. On that point, the LGA has stated:
It is clear from speaking to our membership that many local authorities are worried that they have severe skills and capacity shortages which could affect their ability to deliver the functions of the lead role effectively.
That concern has been raised by several different sources, including water companies, which have identified what they see as a lack of skills in water management in local authorities since the era of privatisation, and local ecologists and hydrologists, who have said that reorganised learning and skills councils are now neglecting such skills. There seems to be a potential gap and a lack of people with the skills to do those jobs available to local authorities. I think that that is a serious issue to be addressed and look forward to some strong reassurances from the Minister on the amendments.

David Drew: There is a real problem here, but I come to a different conclusion. It is fair to say, and my hon. neighbours will confirm the point, that Gloucestershire, following the floods of 2007, has been one of the pathfinder areas. Significant money has been invested in that area to look at schemes that it may be necessary to work up: not always hard technology schemes, but ones that would be needed if we were to re-experience the terrible floods that we were afflicted by in 2007. However, that does not take away from what I said on Tuesday, about some of the more everyday floods that affect a number of my constituents.
It is fair to say that, having raised expectations in looking at some of the mapping and some of the planning that has come on the back of that, people cannot then be told that it is unaffordable. I am keen that we should look at cost-benefit analysis, which I have always adhered to in terms of coastal flooding, given that my constituency abuts much of the River Severn. I have always argued that it is pointless to keep spending money on hard technology schemes that mean that other areas will bear the consequences of those problems. He is not here, so I can say that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) knows that I spend all my time trying to argue against some of the schemes that might come into Gloucester, if they mean that the problem is just pushed downstream, not just to my constituency but further south.
It is right to recognise that, if local government is given the responsibility, we should fund it. We have to be honest and open. If we are not going fund it, we have to tell people, because that would be the worst of all worlds. I do not want a panoply of independent bodies doing that. I trust local governmentif we put the right people in; I will mention skills in a minuteto take responsibility for that, to fund it and to carry out the work. I hope that central Government do not believe that local government can do it itself. The basis underwriting the Bill is that central Government are putting their hand in their pocket. Once that happens, it is up to local government to exercise its means to carry through the work or to make it clear why it is not doing so.
On one hand, if we release those expectations, we have to deliver, but on the other hand we have to recognise that that is the responsibility of local government. Of course, local government must confer, consult and get the best brains to enable that to happen, but it must be the responsible body. That is why I am uneasy with both amendments, because, again, they seem to pass off the responsibility for doing it to the great and the good, whereas I would much prefer local government to be the responsible agency.
On skills, I tabled new clause 26, following discussions with Unison, which has a vested interest in this matter because its members, in the main, will be taking on and taking forward the flood responsibilities. There have been extensive discussions with the Minister. I want to reserve my remarks until we discuss that new clause, although it looks as though that may be the last thing we do, so I have some time to wait. It is important that we recognise that there is a dearth of skills in this area. I have talked to water engineers who seem to be the same age as me: the professional people with the relevant skills are ageing. We must consider how to bring people into the industry and how to trust them to come forward with the type of schemes that we want, and ensure that they have the means to do that.
I will say no more at this stage, but I hope that the Minister will have a lot to say about that now, and perhaps in more detail later, because we can have the money and the will, but if we do not have the people to do the work it is all somewhat hypothetical.

John Grogan: Just as I have been inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud on many occasions, he has inspired me on this occasion to say a few words. Just as I am enjoying every minute of the Bill and serving on the Committee, a few years ago I enjoyed serving on the Licensing Bill, when similar concerns were raised about the costs of liquor licensing for local authorities. In retrospect, some of those concerns were proved right, but some were exaggerated. It is only with the passage of time that one can make the account.
I am worried that if we set up an independent review of the costs involved, we will park the issue. Central Government and local government will stand by their positions and make representations and so on. I want the Bill to be implemented from day oneas soon as we pass it, which should be in a few weeks. I know from my contacts in the Local Government Association that there are already ad hoc discussions going on with the Department. Clearly, cost is an issue, as are resources. It is not until officers of local authorities get down to implementing the Bill that we will be able to say what the balance will be. One suggestion from local councillors is for the Department to commit to having continual discussions with the Local Government AssociationI think that they are ad hoc at the momentto look at the Bill month by month and see how it is being implemented. That might be a more practical way of going forward rather than setting up a review that will report in months, or perhaps at the end of the year and into next year. Local authorities, in partnership with central Government, must be able to get on with implementing the Bill. I hope that we can formalise the matter in some way.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I, too, have been inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. We heard a lot of concern in the evidence sessions last week. My hon. Friend outlined perhaps a way forward. That might ease some of the anxiety coming from the Local Government Association. That approach is to put the ad hoc discussions on a more formal footing, so there is a formal system, with which the LGA can actively engage, not only for monitoring costs, but for overseeing a scheme to develop trainingthat would take on board the Liberal Democrats amendmentbecause we know that there is a need to extend training opportunities in this area.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Given the number of hon. Members who have spoken on the matter, it is clear that we have an issue to deal with. We know that it has been an issue in the ongoing discussions on the draft Bill. Even today, it continues to be an issue, which is not surprising. In my previous role in the Wales Office, any allocation of funding or transfer of consequential funding from England to Wales was always a matter of great debate. The issue would always be, Was there enough and does it cover every eventuality?
I applaud the LGA for making the representations as strongly as it has, but let me restate the position for the purposes of the Committee. If the hon. Member for Cheltenham wants to hold me to what I said before, I can confirm that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is committed fully to fund net new burdens on local authorities, to keep the cost and assumptions under review and to address any shortfalls that may arise. There is a temptation in this debate to go through every aspect of the funding, but I would be here for hours. I am currently having those discussions with the LGA.
In broad terms, our assessment of the new burdens is based on the upper end of cost estimates, and the conservative end of savings assumptionsI made that clear in the evidence sessions as well. That will provide the added confidence that the burdens will be fully funded, but we will keep the costs and assumptions under review. We will work with the LGA, and we will address any shortfalls that arise.
I agree, without any reservation, about the need to ensure that the local authorities have the capacity and funding to undertake the role, but requiring a review to happen before commencement will be unduly bureaucratic and, even worse, it could delay the management of flood risk, which affects people, properties and businesses. It is in the Governments interests to ensure that lead local authorities have the funding that they need

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at One oclock.